SHANKARRAO NAGOJI MUGAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Najbile, learned counsel for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(h).

(2.) Today this Court has already disposed of Writ Petition No. 1556 of 1997 by partly allowing it. These two writ petitions are again between the same parties. The landlord filed two separate proceedings and sought permission to terminate tenancy of petitioner tenant on the ground that the petitioner tenant has secured alternate accommodation and has committed acts of nuisance. On 28.1.1994, by common order the Rent Controller rejected both his applications. The respondent landlord thereafter filed two appeals before the appellate authority under Clause 21 of C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order) and these two appeals have been decided by common order on 13.12.1996 by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has granted permission only under clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order to the respondent landlord by holding that the petitioner has secured alternate accommodation.

(3.) Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned appellate authority has erroneously held that the petitioner has secured alternate accommodation. He has taken the Court through the judgment of the appellate Court for that purpose and has tried to demonstrate that the finding recorded is that the major sons of the petitioner tenant have secured their own houses and are staying separately and doing their own business. He contends that separate business or separate houses by the major sons cannot be treated as alternate accommodation by present petitioner and therefore the permission granted under clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order is unsustainable.